Background
Wisconsin has been chosen as the new summer home and breeding grounds for a
new flock of wild migratory whooping cranes to help safeguard the species
from extinction. But who decided on Wisconsin, and how did they decide? In
this activity, students participate in a simulation of environmental issues
surrounding the Eastern whooping crane reintroduction project.

Whooping cranes are one of our best-known endangered species. They symbolize
the struggle to maintain the vanishing creatures of our world. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and other partners that comprise The
Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership (WCEP) are taking steps to reintroduce
whooping cranes into eastern North America.

Whooping
crane survival depends on additional, separated populations. About
1400 whooping cranes existed in 1860, but hunting and habitat loss
reduced their numbers to fewer than 20 birds in the early 1940s. Luckily,
these birds didn't die out. In the decades since, the species has experienced
a modest comeback — but all the wild migratory birds are concentrated
in a single flock (there were only 174 individuals in fall 2001) that
breeds in Canada's Wood Buffalo National Park and winters at Aransas
National
Wildlife
Refuge
on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Scientists have long recognized the risk
of having all of the wild whooping cranes using one wintering and breeding
location. With all of the cranes concentrated in one area, the entire
population could be wiped out by disease, bad weather, or human impacts.

After a
species is listed as threatened or endangered, the Endangered Species
Act requires that a recovery plan be designed. Whooping crane
conservation is guided by a Recovery Plan and a U.S.-Canadian Whooping
Recovery Team. The Recovery Team includes specialists from both
countries. The team recommended in 1999 that another migratory flock
of whooping
cranes be established to safeguard the species. The goal of the Recovery
Plan is to establish, in addition to the Aransas/Wood Buffalo wild flock,
two breeding populations of at least 25 pairs each, One breeding population
(75 whoopers in 2001) now lives in year-round in Florida as a nonmigratory
flock. The second additional breeding population—starting with
10 young whooping cranes—will be reintroduced in 2001
as a wild flock that migrates
in eastern North America as they did long ago.

Even though
they are members of an endangered species, the new Eastern flock is
designated
as a Nonessential Experimental Population (NEP) — "experimental" because
it will be isolated from other populations of the same species, and "nonessential" because
they will not be esssential to the survival of the entire species. Under
this designation, the reintroducd whooping cranes will not receive full
Endangered Species Act protection, which will allow greater management
flexibility and also resolve some possible conflicts between people and
whooping crane conservation.

The Whooping Crane Recovery Team carefully planned the creation of the new
Eastern migratory flock of whooping cranes. In deciding where to create a new
flock, they wanted to keep all newly established flocks far away from the existing
wild flock. to minimize the risk of transmitting disease or behavioral quirks
that could affect survival of the wild flock. The Team proposed Wisconsin as
the summer and breeding area for the new flock, with Chassahowitzka
National Wildlife Refuge in Florida as the wintering site. If the new flock becomes
successfully established, the birds might gradually spread north and west on
both breeding and wintering grounds, and whooping cranes will grace the skies
over eastern North America for the first time in over a century.Many steps were necessary before the Whooping Crane Eastern
Reintroduction Project could take place. First, experts had to
find out if Wisconsin has suitable breeding habitat available.
Second, Wisconsin and Florida and all states in the proposed flyway
for this proposed new flock had to give their approval. Third,
the plan had to be approved by the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway
Councils, as the new flock would migrate in a diagonal path from
one flyway to the other. A trial migration experiment was carried
out in 2000, using the whoopers' non-endangered sandhill crane
cousins in a "dress rehearsal" for the whooping crane
reintroduction. The ultralight-led migration to teach the cranes
their migration route from Wisconsin to Florida was a success,
paving the way to perform the same migration experiment with endangered
whooping cranes in fall 2001. The Wisconsin habitat assessment
study was conducted by consultant John Cannon, working closely
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources.

Lesson SummaryNow
we ask students to step back to the time when the Wisconsin site assessment
was actually underway—and to play the roles of various groups
that had a stake in the outcome. Students will be divided into small
interest groups with different positions on plans for this historic
reintroduction of whooping cranes. Using information presented to
them and their own
research and background knowledge, each group will prepare arguments
supporting their position to a panel of classmates. The panel will
then come to a decision based on the arguments from the groups. Students
gather
and present facts based upon a certain viewpoint, think of issues from
several perspectives, understand the opposing forces that come into
play on environmental issues, realize how important it is to understand
all
sides of an issue, and develop discussion and debate skills.

Optional: Overhead projector, transparencies, and markers for the
groups' presentations

Directions

Briefly
explain that a simulation activity involves adopting various viewpoints
and
role playing. Share the background above and explain
the format of the activity: Each of seven equal-size groups will arrive
at a certain position concerning the site selection of the cranes'
summer home. One group will be the "Board" that will make
a final decision. Each group's task will be to develop arguments and
a five-minute presentation to give to the group that serves as the "Whooping
Crane Recovery Team."

Explain
that three areas in Wisconsin were initially proposed to be assessed
as the
first release site for the new Eastern migratory
flock: Goose Fortress, Frog Haven, and Waterfowl Haven (fictitious
names). Pass out to everyone "Three Proposed Sites," a page
that describes each of these sites. Tell students that it is up to
their group to determine the qualities and drawbacks of each site in
considering the position their group will take.

Review your role as Facilitator and share theguidelines
on your role sheet with students. Download, print,
and pass out one Role Assignment (see materials list
above) to each group as well as the background information
detailed in the materials list above. You may wish
to scan materials and present unfamiliar vocabulary
words. For example, staging areas are those
places where large numbers of birds aggregate before
or during migration. Impoundments are human-created
ponds with dams to help control water levels.

Provide adequate time for groups
to meet, discuss their positions, and
plan their presentations. As facilitator,
you may want to circulate among the
various interest groups and encourage
brainstorming potential difficulties
and issues for their consderation.
During this time, the Whooping Crane
Recovery Team will need to come up
with a schedule for the interest groups'
presentations and the rules under which
groups should present. Set the date
for the Whooping Crane Recovery Team
to announce their decision.

Allow
the Recovery Team to give
their decision and rationale.
They will reveal their evaluation
criteria. Ask them how they
felt during their roles.
Discuss the importance of
a real-life hearing like
this. Invite students to
share or journal about insights
they gained, and to identify
other current issues for
additional simulation activities.

After
the
interest
group
presentations
and
while
the
Whooping
Crane
Recovery
Team
makes
its
final
decision,
explore
how
the
groups
felt
about
what
they
did.
You
may
wish
to
discuss
questions
such
as
these:

How did you feel about the issue before the activity? After the
activity?

Which of you really believed in your own arguments? Could you detect
when students were arguing points that they didn't believe in? How?

Did anyone become aware of new perspectives during the exercise?
How did this affect your thinking?

What did the activity reveal about the difficulty of making the
decision?